Loading...
Answers
MenuLeader and manager...compatible?
In XX century we used to say that some perfect entrepreneur should mix and combine leadership and management skills to be 100% successful...is it still true on XXI century with our global challenge?
Answers
Even more so in a global economy. Both skill-sets are required in varying percentages, depending on what's going on in the business. Effective leadership is about inspiring and instilling confidence and "followership" in your staff, and demonstrating strength of character, conviction, and stability to customers. "Managing" is the set of skills needed to competently run the business. You have to have both, in good measure, to succeed.
There's a functional difference in leading an organization and leading (managing) a team operationally. As a Founder, usually by necessity, you will have a greater chance of success in your venture if you can excel at a 50/50 split of strengths for both in the early days.
Without the ability to communicate your vision and build the team you need to launch your venture, you won't attract a team. Once you have them, you've got to execute which requires significant management skills with people and project management to produce and deliver your product or service.
As your organization and your team grows, it's important to really self-assess/get feedback on where your true strength lies - leading or managing. If you are strongest in the leadership role - narrow your lens and channel your energy in growing that strength for the good of your company. Partner or staff up with strong managers who live and breathe your people, systems, products/services, etc. If you're strongest at management - partner up with a demonstrated leader who shares your VISION and ultimate goal(s).
Seth Godin had a great video a bit back that got into the heart of this: http://youtu.be/Xx2SV2bYSfU
The thing that makes me curious about your question is how it connects to your work. Do you feel that if you can't bring 100% you won't be able to compete in a "global" marketplace?
I don't think leadership and management will ever be mutually exclusive.
It's a battle of semantics. A manager has subordinates, a leader has followers. Since following is a voluntary action, a manager would have to give up authoritative control.
Still, employees can choose whether to follow you, or just acknowledge your orders.
Management skills are what identify that baseline of performance and use it to maximum efficiency. Leadership skills provide motivation so that baseline is increased.
Without a combination of these skills, you're missing out on the full potential of your team.
I would argue that being a "managing leader" is more important than ever to develop a successful team and business.
Leaders and managers can only be compatible if both feel AND agree the leadership model is right for the company, for if the manager cannot read between the lines the company will not survive for long no matter how good the leadership you have. These are the following leadership models which can be applied:
1. Action Centered Leadership
2. Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid
3. Dunham and Pierce’s Leadership Process Model
4. Fiedler’s Contingency Model
5. French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power
6. Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory
7. Tannenbaum-Schmidt Leadership Continuum
8. Lewin’s Leadership Styles Framework
9. Path-Goal Theory
Besides if you do have any questions give me a call: https://clarity.fm/joy-brotonath
Managers have gotten a bad rap lately. Regardless of their reputation, managers are critically important. A manager organizes resources, including people. The manager makes decisions around allocation of assets, sets goals and implements the tools to measure progress against those goals. We rely on management to create a safe, consistent place and to measure success.
But leadership is different. Leadership moves beyond managing and incorporates the heart and soul of the enterprise. Leadership stirs people to go beyond what is required, and to do what’s important. A leader inspires and motivates, certainly, but also sets the tone, recognizes strengths as they arise, acknowledges brilliance and sets standards well above what most people think they’re capable of achieving. And a leader accepts accountability for the process and the results.
So, in my mind, managers are important but leadership sets the organization apart.
(I just posted on this very topic on LinkedIn- click here for the article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-i-move-from-manager-leader-upside-partners-inc-%3FtrackingId=3lAGByAsCSk2CmAHgQOREA%253D%253D/?trackingId=3lAGByAsCSk2CmAHgQOREA%3D%3D )
Related Questions
-
Is it essential for a non-tech founder to spend time becoming more technical in order to manage both the non-tech and tech team more effectively?
Obviously that wouldn't hurt, and there are likely benefits to doing so. The thing to consider is will doing this save you time and make you a better leader or will it take time away from leading, growing and building a vision for the company? Only you can answer that. Being in a technical industry myself there is no way that I can know as much as my team knows. They are the ones in the trenches and understand the details better than I ever could. But I still need to have an overall grasp and understanding of how each of their roles applies to the projects and coordinate how they work together to get the job done. I could spend more time digging into the details, but ultimately that would take my time away from leading the company.SD
-
How to deal with co-founders that aren't pulling their weight?
I feel your pain — I've been there several times in a couple of my companies. Each situation ended up being unique, and had to be handled differently. I think there are a few things to consider before you make your decision: -- 1. What is in your cofounder's way? Is you cofounder being held up by a lack of clarity? Lack of motivation? Lack of autonomy? One of my past cofounders was very good at getting the job done, but didn't naturally have the skill to lay out tasks in a manageable way. To get around this, I worked with the whole team (4 people) to write up process documentation that removed the need to "figure out what to do next" that was tripping up this cofounder. -- 2. What job was your cofounder brought on to complete? And is it being completed? One of my companies brought on a cofounder simply to give us a marketing platform — he had a huge online audience — but he did nothing else. At first, this caused tension; once we had specifically laid out who was on the team and for what purpose, it was easier to identify where responsibilities lay. -- 3. Is your cofounder capable of doing the job? One of the more painful ordeals I've gone through in business is bringing on a good friend, then realizing that — despite his talent and intelligence — he just wasn't able to perform the job I'd hired him for. His skills were better suited for a different job: he needs hands-on management; he works better with repetitive tasks that don't require big-picture thinking; he lacks assertiveness and confidence, which were critical for the management-level role he'd been hired to do. After I tried to clear everything in his way, it became clear the company couldn't survive if he remained on the team. I had to lay him off. -- 4. Do you just simply not like the way this cofounder works? In one of my startups, there was a cofounder who I didn't know all that well, but he had amazing industry contacts and domain knowledge. However, once we started working together it became clear that we had VERY different working styles. He drove me completely nuts with (what seemed to me to be) a very ADHD-style of planning, with projects starting and being dropped and then coming out of nowhere with a call at 21:00 to discuss something critical that would be forgotten tomorrow. I'm sure I drove him nuts, too. So eventually we ended up selling that company — it was that or shutter it — because we knew there wasn't a chance we'd be successful if we continued as we were. -- Working with other people is tricky in general. Our instinct is to assume that we're the best workers on the planet and everyone else is incompetent, an idiot, a slacker, or all of the above. Usually it's a combination of an organizational-level lack of clarity, poor communication, no processes, and (sometimes) plain ol' we-don't-see-eye-to-eye-on-things-ness. Hopefully that helps. Feel free to get in touch if you'd like to hear specifics on my situations, or if you'd like any help devising a strategy for resolving your cofounder trouble. Good luck!JL
-
From your experience, what are the 'key' rules to building a great team for the long-term?
Your question is very interesting and gives me a feeling you have a real commitment for success because it makes me feel you care for your team. If this question could be fully answered in a couple of lines, you can imagine all managers and executives would lead their teams successfully. The 2 key principles to remember are: 1. Everyone is different: you have to adapt to each individual. It is time consuming but pays off in the long run because everyone has their own learning styles, speed and attitude. Take the time to have 1:1 conversations about them as individuals: likes and dislikes, under what conditions they perform best, how they learn most easily and about their career goals. 2. Create a team spirit. This is the exact opposite of point 1: as much as you recognize everyone as individuals, you have to also build unity and cohesion. There has to be standardized rules of behavior, common values and a shared vision. You have to take time with your team as a whole. This will lead you to create: 1. A personal development plan for each individual in your team, which helps you develop a tailored approach for each person, create reward & recognition systems and monitor people's happiness and performance. This helps you understand your team from a micro-perspective. 2. An organizational development plan for your start-up to give you a more global vision of the talents you need to acquire, retain and grow. This helps you understand your team from a macro-perspective. Team building requires taking time for all the different aspects of bonding: forming, storming, norming, performing, mourning. It's always about balancing two extremes: On one hand you want to take time to work together and alone, to learn & grow, to brainstorm, to create, to plan, to prepare, to research and to measure performance. On the other hand you, you also want to take time away from the office to stop & think, take time to have fun, take time to get to know each other, take time to rest & relax. Do you need any guidance to build individual and organizational development plans that will support growth and team building for your start-up?NK
-
What are the top 5 books on leadership that have influenced you the most?
Good to Great (Collins) Getting Naked (Lencioni) Managing Humans (Lopp) One Minute Manager (Blanchard) Crucial Conversations (Patterson)MS
-
How was PayPal able to build such a great team?
I asked this question to Keith Rabois (ex-PayPal) once and he said it best "it's because we were started in a downturn economy, and it allowed us to hire great people who otherwise would've been starting their own company, so that meant we had the highest IQ per sq/ft than any other company in the valley". So I think it's great timing, idea, initial team and luck.DM
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.